SP.ALAGAPPAN Vs. KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been preferred by the decree holder in O.S.No.29 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi as against the dismissal order of the execution petition in E.P.No.79 of 2013 in O.S.No.29 of 2009 dtd. 10/4/2014. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are arrayed as in E.P.No.79 of 2013.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No.29 of 2009, which was filed for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.43,500.00with 9% interest and the same was decreed in favour of the revision petitioner. At the first instance, the revision petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No.37 of 2011 seeking attachment of the house in which the judgment debtor was residing. However, the judgment debtor filed a counter stating that she has no title over the house and she is residing in the said house as a tenant, which belongs to the Ariyakudi Arulmigu Thiruvengamudaiyan Devasthanam and she is given with a part of land for lease and hence the decree holder cannot attach the same. In view of the counter filed by the judgment debtor, the execution petition was not pressed by the decree holder. Thereafter, second execution petition, was filed before the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in E.P.No.79 of 2013 wherein the revision petitioner prayed that since the judgment debtor is not the owner of the land, the superstructure built by the judgment debtor shall be attached. The judgment debtor filed counter stating that the description of the property ie. door number, survey number, street name etc., are not properly stated. Hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. On consideration of the submissions, made by either parties, the trial Court dismissed the execution petition vide order dtd. 10/4/2014, in which, it was observed that the petitioner sought only to attach the roof of the building and the petitioner failed to prove the ownership of the judgment debtor with respect to the petition scheduled property. Hence, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed execution petition to get the superstructure built by the judgment debtor attached. He further took me into the various grounds of the Revision Petition and sought to set aside the order passed by the execution Court in E.P.No.79 of 2013.